Two years ago they popularized the phrase "repeal-and-replace" to intimate that they had some alternative approach to health care reform they wanted to put in place. And in 2009 they sort of did, tepid and unimpressive as it was. And back then they were more than happy to incorporate elements of the ACA that they (and the public) liked--e.g. eliminating annual and lifetime caps on insurance plans, or letting 26-year-olds stay on their parents' insurance--into their replacement suggestion.

And why shouldn't they? The ACA seized the middle ground and moved on reforms that the right claimed had been its health priorities for years: it provided encouragement for high-deductible plans, put brakes on new state benefit mandates, created mechanisms for allowing insurers to bypass individual state certification processes and sell across state lines, facilitated small business pools, and offered the first federal attention to malpractice reform.

But that was 2009-10 and this is 2012. The most vocal parts of the Republican party are the most radical and they're insistent that retaining or replicating any single piece of the ACA is unacceptable because that would in some way validate the ACA (and Obama--yuck!). And that's backing them into a bit of a corner.

That&#8217;s roughly the time it took for conservatives to jump all over Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his leadership team after the GOP&#8217;s game plan for dealing with President Barack Obama&#8217;s health care law leaked to the media.

Their gripe? Republicans would try to replicate popular parts of Obama&#8217;s health care law if the Supreme Court overturns the law this summer.

Click to expand...

Tensions ran high on the ACA-destruction-dedicated Google email group the Republicans have dubbed The Repeal Coalition.

The behind-the-scenes fight among Republicans richly illustrates why House GOP leadership is so cautious, sensitive and calculating when it comes to dealing with the conservative right. POLITICO obtained the email chain, the contents of which show that health care reform remains just as emotional an issue as ever.

Wesley Denton, an aide to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), questioned whether the &#8220;GOP now against full repeal?&#8221;

&#8220;Should we change the name of this [listserv] to &#8216;partialrepealcoalition&#8217; or &#8216;someofobamacareisprettygood&#8217;?&#8221; Denton wrote to the group.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reiterated Thursday that he wants to repeal all of President Obama&#8217;s healthcare law if the Supreme Court doesn&#8217;t toss out the entire statute.

&#8220;We voted to fully repeal the president&#8217;s healthcare law as one of our first acts as a new House majority, and our plan remains to repeal the law in its entirety,&#8221; Boehner said to reporters. &#8220;Anything short of that is unacceptable.&#8221;

Click to expand...

But by abandoning every single piece of the ACA the Republicans aren't just ditching the big-ticket items I mentioned above, they're also abandoning numerous provisions originally pitched in Republican health care bills over the last 3 years (indeed, the language from those Republican bills was explicitly copied and pasted into the ACA on some occasions), as well as pieces that were new in the ACA but already endorsed by the Republican party. Some examples:

The state-based exchanges that set benefit standards and don't allow plans to turn away applicants due to pre-existing conditions that Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Richard Burr, and Devin Nunes were so proud of when they introduced them

The "Health Plan and Provider Portal Web sites" created by states in the Republican Study Committee Bill to provide consumers with standardized information on certified health plans, as well as price and quality information on providers (in the ACA this website is the face of the state-based exchange)

Use of various student loan programs to bolster the primary care workforce in particular, as in the Republican Study Committee bill

In an interview with ThinkProgress, West pointed to three popular provisions of the health care law that he would like to see preserved: allowing parents to keep children on their health insurance plans until 26, ensuring that people with pre-existing conditions arent denied insurance, and closing Medicares prescription drug donut hole:

KEYES: Say we repeal [Obamacare] tomorrow. Do you think that will then precipitate a drop in insurance premiums?

WEST: Well youve got to replace it. Youve got to replace it with something. If people want to keep their kid on their insurance at 26, fine. Weve got to make sure no American gets turned back for pre-existing conditions, thats fine. Keep the donut hole closed, thats fine. But what I just talked to you about, maybe 20, 25 pages of legislation.​

Senate Republicans are echoing the House GOPs shift in favor of some of the more popular Obamacare provisions, a sign that the party is uniting behind the strategy ahead of the election.

With a Supreme Court decision looming next month, House Republicans are privately weighing a plan to reinstate three popular elements of the law if its struck down  guaranteeing coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, allowing young adults up to 26 years old to remain on a parents insurance policy, and closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the doughnut hole.

Click to expand...

Sen. Roy Blunt (MO), vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, offered a ringing defense of the Obamacare under-26 provision, and said he wouldnt oppose ideas he previously supported simply because President Obama adopted them.

I believe thats one of the things that the Congress would surely reinstate, Blunt told the St. Louis radio station KTRS in an interview last Thursday, pointing out that he has offered similar legislation in the past. Its a way to get a significant number of the uninsured into an insurance group without much cost. Its one of the things I think should continue.

Ive been in a couple meetings lately and theres some general understanding that thats one of the things and there are other things like that as well, the senator added.

A GOP health aide explained the strategy on the shift: Come up with a plan and come up with a plan quick to deal with popular provisions. An interesting twist will be money spent and continued implementation. There could be a deal struck on those two issues as well. The aide said Democrats would have a hard time turning down a Republican proposal to reinstate some of the laws most popular pieces.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN), asked by TPM if he believes his party should back the pre-existing conditions and under-26 laws, didnt endorse specifics but affirmed that his party ought to have a plan ready. Well, I think we need to be prepared, he said. And we will be prepared.

In an interview with ThinkProgress, West pointed to three popular provisions of the health care law that he would like to see preserved: allowing parents to keep children on their health insurance plans until 26, ensuring that people with pre-existing conditions arent denied insurance, and closing Medicares prescription drug donut hole:

KEYES: Say we repeal [Obamacare] tomorrow. Do you think that will then precipitate a drop in insurance premiums?

WEST: Well youve got to replace it. Youve got to replace it with something. If people want to keep their kid on their insurance at 26, fine. Weve got to make sure no American gets turned back for pre-existing conditions, thats fine. Keep the donut hole closed, thats fine. But what I just talked to you about, maybe 20, 25 pages of legislation.​

Senate Republicans are echoing the House GOPs shift in favor of some of the more popular Obamacare provisions, a sign that the party is uniting behind the strategy ahead of the election.

With a Supreme Court decision looming next month, House Republicans are privately weighing a plan to reinstate three popular elements of the law if its struck down  guaranteeing coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, allowing young adults up to 26 years old to remain on a parents insurance policy, and closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the doughnut hole.

Click to expand...

Sen. Roy Blunt (MO), vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, offered a ringing defense of the Obamacare under-26 provision, and said he wouldnt oppose ideas he previously supported simply because President Obama adopted them.

I believe thats one of the things that the Congress would surely reinstate, Blunt told the St. Louis radio station KTRS in an interview last Thursday, pointing out that he has offered similar legislation in the past. Its a way to get a significant number of the uninsured into an insurance group without much cost. Its one of the things I think should continue.

Ive been in a couple meetings lately and theres some general understanding that thats one of the things and there are other things like that as well, the senator added.

A GOP health aide explained the strategy on the shift: Come up with a plan and come up with a plan quick to deal with popular provisions. An interesting twist will be money spent and continued implementation. There could be a deal struck on those two issues as well. The aide said Democrats would have a hard time turning down a Republican proposal to reinstate some of the laws most popular pieces.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN), asked by TPM if he believes his party should back the pre-existing conditions and under-26 laws, didnt endorse specifics but affirmed that his party ought to have a plan ready. Well, I think we need to be prepared, he said. And we will be prepared.

Click to expand...

Good for them.

Click to expand...

In that case, they should keep it all as Republicans didn't have anything to do with these three parts of the bill. Their approval is kind of late and since we are getting close to elections, their motives are suspect.

Rather than the complete health care overhaul that five different congressional committees are writing, Minority Leader John Boehner, left, said they would take the current system and improve it by reforming Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

<SNIP>

Blunt made clear, however, that there would not be a mandate that individuals purchase insurance or that employers offer it. He also claimed that the overall price tag would be significantly lower than Democrat's proposals.

The four-page Republican health care outline lays out a plan that would allow states, associations and small businesses to pool together to offer health insurance. It would give tax credits to low and modest income Americans to help them buy health insurance. It would also let dependents under twenty-five stay on their parent's health insurance.

Rather than the complete health care overhaul that five different congressional committees are writing, Minority Leader John Boehner, left, said they would take the current system and improve it by reforming Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

<SNIP>

Blunt made clear, however, that there would not be a mandate that individuals purchase insurance or that employers offer it. He also claimed that the overall price tag would be significantly lower than Democrat's proposals.

The four-page Republican health care outline lays out a plan that would allow states, associations and small businesses to pool together to offer health insurance. It would give tax credits to low and modest income Americans to help them buy health insurance. It would also let dependents under twenty-five stay on their parent's health insurance.

Ah, but it is! As I mentioned in the OP: By abandoning every single piece of the ACA the Republicans aren't just ditching the big-ticket items I mentioned above, they're also abandoning numerous provisions originally pitched in Republican health care bills over the last 3 years (indeed, the language from those Republican bills was explicitly copied and pasted into the ACA on some occasions), as well as pieces that were new in the ACA but already endorsed by the Republican party.

Numerous Republican ideas were put into the affordable care act. Their legislative language on tort reform, their desire to allow health insurers to sell across state lines, their goal of making high deductible plans more prevalent, etc.

They've pretended there's nothing in there they like (certainly not the bulk of their own health agenda!), but in reality they know that even by their own standards "some of Obamacare is pretty good."

ObamaCare is a gigantic POS that should be aborted and replaced with the Whole Food Recommendation, and even if ObamaCare added the Whole Foods Recommendations to it as a rider, it would still be a POS needing an abortion

&#8226;&#8201;Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

&#8226;&#8201;Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

&#8226;&#8201;Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

&#8226;&#8201;Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

&#8226;&#8201;Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

&#8226;&#8201;Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

&#8226;&#8201;Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Ah, but it is! As I mentioned in the OP: By abandoning every single piece of the ACA the Republicans aren't just ditching the big-ticket items I mentioned above, they're also abandoning numerous provisions originally pitched in Republican health care bills over the last 3 years (indeed, the language from those Republican bills was explicitly copied and pasted into the ACA on some occasions), as well as pieces that were new in the ACA but already endorsed by the Republican party.

Numerous Republican ideas were put into the affordable care act. Their legislative language on tort reform, their desire to allow health insurers to sell across state lines, their goal of making high deductible plans more prevalent, etc.

They've pretended there's nothing in there they like (certainly not the bulk of their own health agenda!), but in reality they know that even by their own standards "some of Obamacare is pretty good."

Click to expand...

Except no one is saying that.

Repeal and replace.

I found the link to the GOP plan from 2009...I liked it then and I like it now.

2. Protect Americans from being forced into a new government-run health care plan
that would: a) eliminate the health care coverage that more than 100 million
Americans currently receive through their job; b) limit your choice of doctors and
medical treatment options; and c) result in the federal government taking control
of your health care.

3. Let Americans who like their health care coverage keep it, and give all Americans
the freedom to choose the health plan that best meets their needs.

4. Ensure that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not
government bureaucrats.

Recognizes that not all high school and college graduates are able to find a job that
offers health care coverage after graduation. By allowing dependents to remain on
their parents&#8217; health policies up to the age of 25, the number of uninsured Americans
could be reduced by up to 7 million.

Two years ago they popularized the phrase "repeal-and-replace" to intimate that they had some alternative approach to health care reform they wanted to put in place. And in 2009 they sort of did, tepid and unimpressive as it was. And back then they were more than happy to incorporate elements of the ACA that they (and the public) liked--e.g. eliminating annual and lifetime caps on insurance plans, or letting 26-year-olds stay on their parents' insurance--into their replacement suggestion.

And why shouldn't they? The ACA seized the middle ground and moved on reforms that the right claimed had been its health priorities for years: it provided encouragement for high-deductible plans, put brakes on new state benefit mandates, created mechanisms for allowing insurers to bypass individual state certification processes and sell across state lines, facilitated small business pools, and offered the first federal attention to malpractice reform.

But that was 2009-10 and this is 2012. The most vocal parts of the Republican party are the most radical and they're insistent that retaining or replicating any single piece of the ACA is unacceptable because that would in some way validate the ACA (and Obama--yuck!). And that's backing them into a bit of a corner.

Thats roughly the time it took for conservatives to jump all over Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his leadership team after the GOPs game plan for dealing with President Barack Obamas health care law leaked to the media.

Their gripe? Republicans would try to replicate popular parts of Obamas health care law if the Supreme Court overturns the law this summer.

Click to expand...

Tensions ran high on the ACA-destruction-dedicated Google email group the Republicans have dubbed The Repeal Coalition.

The behind-the-scenes fight among Republicans richly illustrates why House GOP leadership is so cautious, sensitive and calculating when it comes to dealing with the conservative right. POLITICO obtained the email chain, the contents of which show that health care reform remains just as emotional an issue as ever.

Wesley Denton, an aide to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), questioned whether the GOP now against full repeal?

Should we change the name of this [listserv] to partialrepealcoalition or someofobamacareisprettygood? Denton wrote to the group.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reiterated Thursday that he wants to repeal all of President Obamas healthcare law if the Supreme Court doesnt toss out the entire statute.

We voted to fully repeal the presidents healthcare law as one of our first acts as a new House majority, and our plan remains to repeal the law in its entirety, Boehner said to reporters. Anything short of that is unacceptable.

Click to expand...

But by abandoning every single piece of the ACA the Republicans aren't just ditching the big-ticket items I mentioned above, they're also abandoning numerous provisions originally pitched in Republican health care bills over the last 3 years (indeed, the language from those Republican bills was explicitly copied and pasted into the ACA on some occasions), as well as pieces that were new in the ACA but already endorsed by the Republican party. Some examples:

The state-based exchanges that set benefit standards and don't allow plans to turn away applicants due to pre-existing conditions that Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Richard Burr, and Devin Nunes were so proud of when they introduced them

The "Health Plan and Provider Portal Web sites" created by states in the Republican Study Committee Bill to provide consumers with standardized information on certified health plans, as well as price and quality information on providers (in the ACA this website is the face of the state-based exchange)

Use of various student loan programs to bolster the primary care workforce in particular, as in the Republican Study Committee bill

Reducing premium subsidies for higher-income Medicare beneficiaries in Medicare Part B and Part D, as in Ryan and Coburn's bill

Creation of Accountable Care Organizations in Medicare, as in Ryan and Coburn's bill

​

Baby, bathwater, etc.

Click to expand...

1. Fundamentally, ObamaCare is at odds with the concept of limited government, as the citizens right to choose- the definition of liberty- is sorely limited, and the government is in the drivers seat as to critical health matters.

2. Patients, providers, and employers are responsible for the ever-changing demands of unaccountable regulators. Citizens are mandated to purchase not just healthcare insurance, but specific, detailed and mutable policies, states are mandated to expand Medicaid, and operate carefully manicured exchanges, changing the relationships of American federalism.

a. ObamaCare is the rearrangement of the balance of the rights and the responsibilities of citizens.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!